Volume : 09, Issue : 10, October – 2022



Authors :

Syeda zoya Chishti, Dr Sania Zaib, Name: Dr Syeda Maheen Shah

Abstract :

Aim: Evaluate safety and efficacy of laparoscopic resection vs open surgery for the curative care of patients having tumors of right or left colon. The security and brief advantages of laparoscopic colectomy for cancer patients are still being debated. The multicenter COLOR experiment was conducted to examine the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic excision vs open resection for the curative therapy of individuals having cancer of right or left colon.
Methods: Laparoscopic surgery was allocated to 629 individuals randomly, whereas open surgery was randomized to 623 individuals. The major goal was to determine cancer-free survival one year following surgery. Short-term illness and death, the sum of positive resection margins, local return, port-site or wound-site relapse, metastases, survival rates, also overall blood loss following operation also were secondary outcomes. The evaluation was carried out with the purpose to treat in mind. Clinical features, and operational results, including postoperative prediction remain all discussed here.
Results: People undergoing laparoscopic resection lost less blood than some of those undergoing open excision (median 100 mL [range 0-2710] vs 178 mL, p00002), despite the fact that laparoscopic surgery took 35 minutes longer (p00001). For 93 (18%) of laparoscopic individuals, transition to open surgery was required. The quantity of excised lymph nodes and length of the resection oral and aboral bowel were identical among sets. When contrasted to open colectomy, laparoscopic colectomy significantly related overall faster bowel sufficiently effective (p0.0002), the requirement for more painkillers, and a shorter hospitalization (p00002). Both mortality and morbidity were not different among cohorts 30 days following colectomy.
Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery is performed to safely and completely remove cancer from the right, and left especially sigmoid colons.
Keywords: Laparoscopic Resection vs Open Surgery, Right or Left Colon, Safety and Efficacy.

Cite This Article:

Please cite this article in press Syeda zoya Chishti et al, Evaluate Safety And Efficacy Of Laparoscopic Resection Vs Open Surgery For The Curative Care Of Patients Having Tumors Of The Right Or Left Colon., Indo Am. J. P. Sci, 2022; 09(10).


1. Mintz Y, Arezzo A, Boni L, Baldari L, Cassinotti E, Brodie R, Uranues S, Zheng M, Fingerhut A (2020) The risk of COVID-19 transmission by laparoscopic smoke may be lower than for laparotomy: a narrative review. Surg Endosc 26:1–8
2. Karuppal R, Surendran S, Patinharayil G, Muhammed Fazil VV, Marthya A (2020) It is time for a more cautious approach to surgical diathermy, Especially in COVID-19 outbreak: a schematic review. J Orthop 20:297–300
3. Barrett WL, Garber SM (2003) Surgical smoke—a review of the literature. Is this just a lot of hot air? Surg Endosc 17:979–987
4. Al Sahaf OS, Vega-Carrascal I, Cunningham FO, McGrath JP, Bloomfield FJ (2007) Chemical composition of smoke produced by high-frequency electrosurgery. Ir J Med Sci 176:229–232
5. Hallmo P, Naess O (1991) Laryngeal papillomatosis with human papillomavirus DNA contracted by a laser surgeon. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 248:425–427
6. Calero L, Brusis T (2003) Laryngeal papillomatosis—first recognition in Germany as an occupational disease in an operating room nurse. Laryngorhinootologie 82:790–79
7. Rioux M, Garland A, Webster D, Reardon E (2013) HPV positive tonsillar cancer in two laser surgeons: case reports. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 42:5
8. Kwak HD, Kim SH, Seo YS, Song KJ (2016) Detecting hepatitis B virus in surgical smoke emitted during laparoscopic surgery. Occup Environ Med 73:857–863
9. Baggish MS, Poiesz BJ, Joret D, Williamson P, Refai A (1991) Presence of human immunodeficiency virus DNA in laser smoke. Lasers Surg Med 11:197–203
10. Wang HK, Mo F, Ma CG, Dai B, Shi GH, Zhu Y, Zhang HL, Ye DW (2015) Evaluation of fine particles in surgical smoke from a urologist’s operating room by time and by distance. Int Urol Nephrol 47:1671–1678
11. Yeganeh A, Hajializade M, Sabagh AP, Athari B, Jamshidi M, Moghtadaei M (2020) Analysis of electrocautery smoke released from the tissues frequently cut in orthopedic surgeries. World J Orthop 11:177–183
12. Tanaka Y, Sawakami K, Shoji S, Ishikawa S, Kusabe Y, Wakui J, Sakai Y, Kawase H, Okumura G, Yamashita H, Segawa H (2019) Generation of surgical smoke in spinal surgery. Med J Niigata City Gen Hosp 40:18–23
13. Liu Y, Song Y, Hu X, Yan L, Zhu X (2019) Awareness of surgical smoke hazards and enhancement of surgical smoke prevention among the gynecologists. J Cancer 10:2788–2799
14. Mayo-Yánez M, Calvo-Henríquez C, Lechien JR, Fakhry N, Ayad T, Chiesa-Estomba CM (2020) Is the ultrasonic scalpel recommended in head and neck surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic? State-of-the-art review. Head Neck 42:1657–1663
15. Tan W, Zhu H, Zhang N, Dong D, Wang S, Ren F, Xiang J, Wu R, Lv Y (2019) Characterization of the PM2.5 concentration in surgical smoke in different tissues during hemihepatectomy and protective measures. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 72:103248
16. Sagar PM, Meagher A, Sobczak S, Wolff BG (1996) Chemical composition and potential hazards of electrocautery smoke. Br J Surg 83:1792
17. Semple S, Ibrahim AE, Apsley A, Steiner M, Turner S (2015) Using a new, low-cost air quality sensor to quantify second-hand smoke (SHS) levels in homes. Tob Control 24:153–158
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2018) Technical assistance document for the reporting of Daily Air quality–the air quality index (AQI). https://www.airnow.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/aqi-technical-assistance-document-sept2018.pdf. Accessed 6 Aug 2020
19. Tokuda Y, Okamura T, Maruta M, Orita M, Noguchi M, Suzuki T, Matsuki H (2020) Prospective randomized study evaluating the usefulness of a surgical smoke evacuation system in operating rooms for breast surgery. J Occup Med Toxicol 15:13
20. Shabbir A, Menon RK, Somani J, So JBY, Ozman M, Chiu PWY, Lomanto D (2020) ELSA recommendations for minimally invasive surgery during a community spread pandemic: a centered approach in Asia from widespread to recovery phases. Surg Endosc 34:3292–3297